water september 2013
40
Feature article
AssEssIng WEstErn
WAtEr’s rEsponsE
In order to gain an understanding of how this lengthy boil water notice
had affected itscustomers, Western Water commissioned a research
project to interview customers involved and obtain their feedback.
It was hoped the research would show whether communications
and engagement had been effective, what Western Water could
learn from the experience, and the ways in which the company
could improve if such an incident occurred in the future.
The objectives of the project, conducted by Business Research
Associates, were to examine the effectiveness of communications,
the extent to which customers modified their behaviour, and the
longer-term effects such as people’s attitude to, and use of, tap water.
The project focused on:
• Customer perceptions of the level and mode of communication
from Western Water during the incident;
• Customers’ attention to, understanding of and response to the
communications;
• Behavioural changes made by customers during and after the alert;
• The extent to which customers took advantage of Western Water
support;
• Customers’ expectations on communication, advice and support
for such an alert, and satisfaction with the way Western Water
handled the incident response;
• Whether the event resulted in any longer-term changes to
customers’ behaviours or their attitudes to water quality.
An initial literature review found there was very little publicly available
research on the effects of boil water notices on customer behaviour.
However, a study carried out in the UK on a boil water notice
declared in 1998 found nearly two-thirds of households took
some form of risk as defined by the boil water notice, including a
number who had consumed unboiled water between the time the
contamination was identified and the time they received the notice.
The study conducted for Western Water used in-depth interviews,
carried out with 15 customers, to gain a broad picture of customers’
responses and attitudes. It was felt that this was the most valuable
information, as the relatively small number of people involved meant
it was not possible to get useful quantitative data.
The research showed that the majority of customers were satisfied
with how Western Water managed the situation, and found the boil
water notice “inconvenient but manageable”. However, it identified
several ways in which Western Water could improve its response if
such an incident were to occur again.
The majority of customers received information regarding the boil
water notice quickly, and acted promptly to change their behaviour.
However, some customers felt gaps between communications were
too long.
In contrast, some customers felt a bit bombarded with
information, with Western Water staff visiting homes greeted
with a “You again!” response.
No customers interviewed by researchers ignored the message
that their water needed to be boiled; indeed, mention of “faecal
contamination” in the original letter led to people taking the advice
very seriously.
The core message perceived by customers from Western Water’s
communications channels was “boil or use alternative sources of
water where the water was going to be ingested directly through
food or drink”.
While the risk of drinking the water or using it for food preparation
was perceived as high, the risk of using the water unboiled for other
activities was sometimes seen as acceptable or unavoidable. The
extent to which people changed their behaviour varied; for example,
some boiled water for drinking, but did not boil water used for teeth
brushing. Brushing teeth and washing vegetables were the two
activities where behaviour was likely to be inconsistent.
These variations in behaviour change were due to:
• Some changes being perceived as too inconvenient – “Kept
using unboiled tap water for brushing teeth, preparing food,
dishwashing, pets”;
• Not absorbing the message for a particular use, or simply
forgetting to boil – “Hard to remember not to wash vegetables
under the tap”;
• People’s perception of risk was different for different water uses
–
“Still used tap water for brushing my teeth – don’t see much
risk in that”.
• There was also some uncertainty around specific behaviours, for
example, “should water just be brought to the boil or kept boiling
for a continuous period, say 5–10 minutes?”
Although most customers viewed the boil water notice as merely
inconvenient, a few found the experience quite stressful. These
customers were generally in one of two categories: households
including members with extra risk factors, such as open sores or
impaired immune systems; or customers who did not feel they were
promptly notified. In the second case, it is possible people did not
open letters left for them, believing they were junk mail.
perceived risk
High Medium Low
Drinking a glass of water
14
8
4
Having a shower or bath
2
2
1
Brushing teeth/gargling
11
1
1
Preparing food (eg, washing vegetables) 12
Making hot drinks (eg, tea or coffee)
14
Making cold drinks (eg, cordial)
10
Making ice
6
Making baby formula
1
Washing or rinsing dishes
9
3
2
Water for pets
3
3
4
Water for livestock
2
1
Watering vegetable garden
3
4
Using a water filter
4
Attitudes to risk for different household activities identified
by customers during interviews.